Talk:British Isles

Not Common

After searching a great number of news sources vie Google for "British Isles" the "about" results are below it doesn’t look like the term is common at all, it be hard to argue that it's even common in the UK…

The more I look into this the more it comes apparent the term is mainly used by those who think accuracy is less important then convenience. This does not include news sources in general or at least their usage does not amount to common usage as the article suggests.

Like some of the links previously provided, many may not be using the term as to include Ireland or may be talking about history or historic groups from when Britain ruled Ireland…

Ireland

• 38 from rte.ie
• 2 from rte.ie/news
• 16 from breakingnews.ie
• 34 from ireland.com
• 78 from unison.ie
• 18 from irishexaminer.com

UK

• 518 from guardian.co.uk (inc the Observer)
• 393 from timesonline.co.uk
• 64 from dailymail.co.uk
• 938 from news.bbc.co.uk
• 4 from express.co.uk
• 17 from reuters.co.uk
• 131 from scotsman.com
• 30 from belfasttelegraph.co.uk
• 11 from thesun.co.uk
• 6 from sky.com

US

• 211 from cnn.com
• 12 from foxnews.com
• 177 from nytimes.com
• 31 from latimes.com
• 100 from washingtonpost.com
• 44 from economist.com
• 41 from usatoday.com
• 23 from reuters.com

Canada

• 36 from canada.com
• 47 from cbc.ca
• 42 from theglobeandmail.com

Australia

• 105 from news.com.au
• 129 from smh.com.au
• 172 from abc.net.au

Monucg 03:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This is blatant nonsense. I'd say they were fairly respectable numbers of references anyway, and in any case it reflects only on the number of times people want to refer to the British Isles as a whole. Perhaps you should compare it to whatever you think the most common alternative name for the Isles is? --Khendon 07:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It shows that unlike what the article says, the term is not “still commonly used”.

• “and in any case it reflects only on the number of times people want to refer to the British Isles”

Commonly, it’s not used too much, so the term is not “still commonly used”.

For a term that is in dispute, the article at the very least shouldn’t have lines like “still commonly used” unless it make clear in what circles such is true or in what countries. It’s clearly not “still commonly used” in Ireland – can you at least agree with that? Can I have your permission to add such?

Monucg 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It *is* still commonly used; whenever people want to talk about the British Isles, they overwhelmingly often call it the British Isles. I'd be happy with putting something in about where it's used, if it's carefully phrased. I think it's definitely commonly used in Britain, and I'd accept your word that it's not commonly used in Ireland, but what of the rest of the world? --Khendon 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is commonly used. You can hear it in almost any weather forecast for the region. Waggers 12:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What channels use it in their weather forecast? Just UK ones? Even if so, what ones? Monucg 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The term is very commonly used. I suspect the person who first raised this issue was an American! They never use the correct term and prefer to label the whole British Isles as simply 'England'.

The term is always used in Europe to refer to the group of island which include the UK, Ireland, Isle of Man and sometimes the Channel Islands also. How else would you describe these islands?

I just searched on Google for "British Isles" and found 10,600,000 hits. For comparison "Britain" has 35,500,000 hits. So the term British Isles is very commonly used across the Internet. EdH 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Negative reflection of Wikipedia

This is obviously an out-of-date, and outdated, term. In the first place and most importantly, it is now technical incorrect.

In general, it is no-longer generally, commercially, or academically used, and is a politically sensitive term for many in Ireland and Northern Ireland, and to others in Scotland and Wales.

It is considered a highly offensive term by many in both the North and South of Ireland. Those who support the term are often doing so because they are politically extremely polarised, or just polarised in historic argument to a small percentage of the people who dislike the term, while the general population has no affiliation with the name, and arguably never has.

The fact that greater focus is not giving to the fact the term is out-of-date (‘old and not useful or correct’ - cambridge.org) amounts to another very negative blur on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be a dynamic factual international source, not one that has a place for relics of past British imperialism. The context of any ‘British Isles’ article should be historical

I’m changing “is a term traditionally given to”, to “is an out-of-date term, traditionally given to”. I’m doing this because it is an out-of-date term, and a term which is not factually correct. Edit: For clarity I have edited this to “is an out-of-date and now technical incorrect term, traditionally given to”.

Monucg 23:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. It's still commonly used, and is not factually incorrect. It is only incorrect if you interpret British Isles as a statement that the islands belong to the British, rather than a geographical description. --

Khendon 07:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Where in the world is it "still commonly used” and what is it used for (real examples, please)? For starters, it is not an accepted phrase in all of the so-called British Isles.

The majority of the first few pages of a Google search for ‘British Isles’, refers to groups or sources linking back to the days of the British Empire, OR refers to things concerning ‘Great Britain’ alone or the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’. Geographical use is in the minority, and mainly from British sources.

"Geographical description", give over. Is English actually your first language? Can you not interpret an English language term in the way the language dictates? Geography is not like math, it does not have its own language that avoids the rules of English .

Monucg 19:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

MATHS not MATH. [By 80.229.137.53]

Looking into this further, I’ve found that the term has been effectively wiped from the official vocabulary of the governments in both the UK and the Irish Republic (although, it is still a legal term in the UK).

Monucg 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• The Met Office
• the education department
• the Botanical Society of the British Isles
• DEFRA
• UK government direct
• Heriot-Watt University
• BBC

Yes, commonly used. You might not like it to be, you might think it's terribly unfair, but wikipedia should reflect what is, not what you think ought to be. --

Khendon 20:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I love the fact you avoid answering about the factually correctness of the term it is by English standards factually incorrect. That “is” was it is, factually incorrect, but you edited this from the article – why?

I'm sorry, I really can't understand that paragraph. --Khendon 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You have also avoided my point that the vast majority of Google's first few pages for ‘British Isles’, refers items about the days of the British Empire, or refers to Britain and/or the UK (which does not include Ireland - just in case you don’t know, because your links aren’t much to go on…).

Some of them do, certainly, and others are contemporary. I'm not sure what your point is? --Khendon 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So far the only thing you have proven that 'is', is school children in the UK, and the British Met Office use maps of Ireland and the UK with the name British Isles

Linking to the Botanical Society of the British Isles is pointless; it was set up in 1836, when the British state controlled my country.

So? If the phrase was no longer commonly used, I'd expect the name to change. --Khendon 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The linked Defra page use of the British Isles is about “TRAVELLING WITHIN THE UK” - it does not refer to the Republic of Ireland

The BBC link is to a program aimed at British viewer. The site commonly talks about 'Britain’s', and ‘Britain’ on the site. If they mean both the UK and Ireland, calling Ireland part of ‘Britain’, and calling things belong to it/its people 'Britain’s' is wrong by Wikipedia’s standards – so that’s not a good source to make your point.

The directgov link is misleading at best “One way to look at this is that the UK is the part of the British Isles for which Parliament makes laws”… so, apparently the British Parliament still controls the Republic of Ireland. Another link not too heavy on accuracy.

Er, you completely misread that sentence. It's saying that the UK is the British Isles minus the bits where Parliament's authority doesn't run (ie, UK = British Isles minus RoI minus some other bits) --Khendon 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Your link named ‘Heriot-Watt University’, is misleading, the page is part of the personal site hosted by the university. The opening page reads “Everything beyond this page lies outside the responsibility of Heriot-Watt University”. But as you linked to it… the author says “Applying the term British, or any of its variants, to citizens of the republic is both incorrect politically and politically incorrect”, but linking the term British to the main island they inhabit is some-how fine. This is confused logic.

It's not at all confused logic. I make no claims about how "fine" the phrase is, only that is commonly used. --Khendon 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You’re not good at research (dear god, don’t tell me you do it for a living), leading to being misleading and not good at what you term “what is”, ie fact. To be crude, your reply amounts to proving you are what you accused me of being.

You might have the right to revert my article edits, but you have no proven grounds.

Monucg 22:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't "research", it was five minutes spent finding sources showing that the phrase is still in common use. The very fact I didn't have to use more than a few pages of a couple of google searches to find plenty of examples of its use only supports my point. I could keep on finding more examples, but what would be the point?

Canada is part of North America, but Canadians aren't American; the Persian Gulf doesn't belong to the Persians; the British Isles don't belong to the British... but all these names are still used. That's because the implication you imagine is there doesn't really exist. --Khendon 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Monucg, please no personal attacks and whatever you think about "British Isles", "Irish Republic" is ***totally incorrect*** when referring to the Republic of Ireland. Djegan 19:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Djegan, if you are talking about my comment about Khendon not being good at research (based on his above research), it was not in “bad faith” and was not with any venom (never mind “sufficient venom”). It was an attack on the person’s research. But as you think I may have broked the rules, I'll take this on board and will try to be more careful in future. As for my use of "Irish Republic", I was meaning to use ‘the Irish republic’ (lc). Anyway, my use was in a discussion, unlike the article in question which uses an even more-so ***totally incorrect*** term.

• “I'm sorry, I really can't understand that paragraph. --Khendon”

Sorry about that, here’s a fix… I love the fact you avoid answering about the factually correctness of the term, after all it is by English standards factually incorrect. It is not just “what [I] think ought to be” but you edited this from the article – why?

• “Some of them do, certainly, and others are contemporary. I'm not sure what your point is? --Khendon”

My point is that out of the Google results the vast majority of pages refer to the term in ‘British Isles’ in a context of (A) history, and (B) not including the Republic of Ireland.

• “So? If the phrase was no longer commonly used, I'd expect the name to change. --Khendon”

What “you think ought to be”, or what you “expect” of the Botanical Society of the British Isles, may be one thing or another, “but wikipedia should reflect what is”, not what you “expect”.

• "Er, you completely misread that sentence. It's saying that the UK is the British Isles minus the bits where Parliament's authority doesn't run (ie, UK = British Isles minus RoI minus some other bits) --Khendon"

Yes, I misread it, sorry about that. You still haven’t answered my points on the Defra or the BBC links – can I take it you now don’t believe they support your case?

• “It's not at all confused logic. I make no claims about how is, only that is commonly used. --Khendon”

By removing my statement in the article about the term being factually incorrect by English language standards you have inferred that the phrase is of "fine" quality.

• “It wasn't "research", it was five minutes spent finding sources showing that the phrase is still in common use. --Khendon”

The amount of time spent does not alter the fact that it was research.

• “The very fact I didn't have to use more than a few pages of a couple of google searches to find plenty of examples of its use only supports my point. I could keep on finding more examples, but what would be the point?” --Khendon”

Next time you could exclude items that only talk about the term in the context of the UK. You could possibly try to show that the term is commonly used in a non-historic way outside the UK. You could try not to link to peoples personal pages and use a university’s name in the link tag.

• “Canada is part of North America, but Canadians aren't American; the Persian Gulf doesn't belong to the Persians; the British Isles don't belong to the British... but all these names are still used. That's because the implication you imagine is there doesn't really exist. --Khendon”

Nice flawed examples there…

Canadians are North Americans, but if you want to go by this site’s standards – “American may also refer to… a current or former resident of the Americas; a native of the Americas.

As for the Persian Gulf - Your point is? Is it relevant? It there still a state named Persia? Do the Persians still control “dependences”? Anyway, the ‘Persian Gulf’ implies the gulf belongs to the Persians, for one reason or another this term is in disputed. It is far worse to imply an island that is part occupied by one state to be owned by another.

Monucg 21:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

PS Hate to interrupt such a good argument, but the UK does include part of Ireland. It is commonly known as Northern Ireland, just in case you didn't know.

[By 80.229.137.53]

I've moved the above text and added "[By 80.229.137.53]", as where it was placed it looked like I said such.

In reply to the above comment, in the above we're talking about states, Ireland the state is not in the UK. Monucg 18:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought we were talking about the whole of the island of Ireland rather than just the Republic of Ireland, which is, of course, only part of the island. However, having scrolled through the reams and reams of discussion on this topic, I must make a point or two: Whether Irish people like it or not, the name British Isles has stuck, being used for both Great Britain and Ireland (Little Britain), as well as the many surrounding Isles. It is not the duty of Wikipedia to voice opinions over the name's suitability, rather to report that there are divided opinions over its use. [By 80.229.137.53] 17 Feb.

To add my two cents, I would say the British Isles is correct and accurate, and the nickname British for "people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is actually what is incorrect. Briton / Britannias & Britannea historically included Ireland (dating right back 2000 years) and it is only the use of the nickname "Briton" for people from the UK which has clouded the issue, in the same way that "Americans" is used as a nickname for people from the US and not people from Mexico. The British Isles will not change their name until the North American and South American continents change their name. Interesting this dispute is almost entirely an American one (where I mean US!) with the inhabitants I have spoken to throughout the British Isles being (on the whole) happy with the name British Isles. Rnt20 10:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What are the British Isles?

Ireland is not part of the british isles!

There's already a Talk page for "Britain and Ireland" which covers this issue to some extent, but actually the discussion belongs here because "British Isles" is the term being objected to; "Britain and Ireland" was just suggested as an alternative.

To begin with, the term "British Isles" is the commonly used and accepted term which refers to the group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe which includes the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and the many smaller adjacent islands. As authorities for this one may cite, among many, many others: Merriam-Webster Geographical Dictionary, Houghton-Mifflin Dictionary of Geography, Oxford Dictionary of the World, Goode's World Atlas, National Geographic Atlas of the World, Rand McNalley Atlas of the World, de Blij and Muller's Geography: Realms, Regions and Concepts (authoritative college text), etc. etc.

The use of the term is not simply common, it is virtually universal, among geographers, cartographers, historians, news writers, travel writers, and ordinary people. In fact, if there is any alternative equivalent term in use, I have been unable to find it. If there were one, surely it would have appeared in Kearney's "The British Isles: A history of four nations"; I looked there and didn't see one.

Of course it is possible to use an explicit descriptive phrase, such as "Great Britain and Ireland and adjacent islands", but virtually no one does, for reasons that are obvious. It's just too cumbersome, and quite unnecessary because the convenient term "British Isles" is so well established and widely documented that its meaning is virtually certain to be clear.

Norman Davies overcame this problem, in the title of his book, by just calling them 'The Isles', however, while being uncontroversial it is a little problematic. If you were looking up the book on a library catalogue, how would you know which Isles were being referred to?

---

If I were Iceland I would be deeply concerned about this IONA business. --MichaelTinkler

Not to mention the Faeroes, Greenland, Newfoundland, Rhode Island, Long Island, etc. -- Derek Ross

I removed the following (twice):

although there are of course cases where this cannot be done while preserving the intended meaning.

It is clearly and unambiguously POV. It implies that there is a right and wrong meaning to the BI, and that there are occasions when it is right to use it. That is completely disputed by many people, not just in Ireland, but also by nationalists in Scotland and Wales. Many see it as a term that is a hangover from past imperial anglo-centric times. Such a POV sentence has no place in the article.

In addition, to suggest that BI has a geographical meaning is factually wrong. In other cases, terms like Iberia, etc can be accepted by the states on Iberia because it does not have any potential political implications. BI does, because it was a term first coined to refer to a set of islands that were not just geographically but politically bound together, hence it is not a geographic term (as whomever keeps adding in the POV stuff seems to think) but a geo-political term. It is seen by some as the equivalent of using the term former Soviet Union to describe those states in the geographic area that covers Russia and states that once were part of the USSR. Using such a term would be seen as provocative and offensive by ex-USSR states who had achieved their independence, just as indeed the term former Yugoslavia is viewed as offensive by some people in that region. British Isles is widely interpreted by some as meaning the islands of Britain. Ireland is not an island of Britain, it is an island off Britain, a different thing entirely. Because internationally it is often treated as meaning some sort of current political relationship between Ireland and GB, the term is not merely not used by Irish people but is seen as arrogant, offensive and presumptive. And it is not a simple geographic term but a geo-political term. FearÉIREANN 19:42 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I doubt BI ... was a term first coined to refer to a set of islands that were ...politically bound together. There are maps on the internet (e.g. 1607) from well before the 1707 English-Scotish Act of Union that use the terms Britannicarun Insularum (Hibernia + Britannia major) or similar. I don't know Latin, but that sounds like BI to me. I don't dispute that BI has gathered some political implications since. Andy G 22:33 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In fact, I think it's the other way round: British was originally a neutral geographical term for all the islands but it has since been used politically to imply the UK. Hence the problems. Andy G 22:42 27 Jun 2003 (UTC. See Pliny on this.

That is simplistic. The states of Ireland and England were de-facto brought together when England claimed sovereignty in Ireland with the Treaty of Winsdor and the establishment of the english Lordship of Ireland in the 1170s. In 1541, the english King was proclaimed King of Ireland. Ireland was a nominally separate kingdom but was run by an english Lord Deputy and a parliament from which the native Irish were excluded and which was filled with the descendants of english settlers. Nobody from 1541 if not centuries earlier saw Ireland as anything other than an english colony. From October 1604 James I of England and Ireland and VI of Scotland claimed the title of King of the united kingdom of Great Britain. Its usage on those maps represented the fact that the three nominally independent states were all one political unit. Its usage clearly and unambiguously showed the political relationship, not just the geographic one, that bound the islands. Describing it as ever being a neutral geographical term is patently absurd and displays a serious lack of understanding of the history of the islands. FearÉIREANN 23:04 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In the above "to suggest that BI has a geographical meaning is factually wrong" seems at odds with all the other opinions expressed here. As most everybody writing on this page has said, BI is widely considered a geographical term. Some people may be sensitive to the possibility that BI may be interpreted in another, political, way. They have the right to prefer other terminology, and even to promote its use, as this page now unashamedly does. It is quite another thing to argue that the term "British Isles" was somehow invented by the English as a political slight to the islands' non-English occupants. There are many bad things in anglo-irish history: this term is not one of them.

Ireland was invaded and occupied by Normans in the 12th century, whose leader happened to be King of England (but not Scotland or Wales), although he rarely visited. When Henry II died, England had nothing any more to do with Ireland until its Lord, the Norman prince Jean, inherited the English throne in 1199. By this time, Ireland had been colonised by Normans, most of whom soon (to borrow a phrase) "went native" becoming "more Irish than the Irish". See History of Ireland and map.

The organised domination of Ireland by english rulers really started with Henry VIII, whose policies were of unbridled opposition to anything controlled by the Pope. The Norman-ancestry lords of Ireland at this time mainly opposed Henry and remained Roman Catholic. By Henry's time, mapmakers across Europe were already producing, and in some cases printing, maps entitled "British Isles" and it seems likely that the term originated some time earlier for it to have reached such wide acceptance. We have no empirical evidence that the term was originated or supported for political purposes at this time. When Ortelius etc. were making their maps, Great Britain was two separate kingdoms. Had there been an English political intention, a title such as the English Isles would have been a far more likely choice.

There may have been attempts after 1603 to promote the single identity of the combined kingdom on the big island, but this was long after the term British Isles was in widespread use. User:EdH 20:22 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Again simplistic and inaccurate. I never said that the term British Isles was unvented by the British. And you chronically underestimate the degree of English involvement in Ireland before Henry VIII. You mention Jean as Ireland's lord, inheriting the English throne. The reason he was called Lord of Ireland was that the territory was given to him by Henri II, who saw Ireland as part of his territories, it being given to him because he was up to that point the only one of Henri's sons without territories, hence his nickname. English rule in Ireland was perceived as legitimate on continental Europe and backed by the pope for centuries before Henry VIII. An all-island Irish state governed by a native polity did not exist and the Lordship of Ireland, then Kingdom of Ireland, was an english creation internationally accepted long before the first maps referred to the term British Isles. So to claim that the term was purely geographical is patently simplistic and inaccurate. Had their been some concept of Ireland as an independent island then it is quite probable as elsewhere that a term would have been used that was neutral rather than focused on the identity of the larger island. But because the smaller island was seen internationally as a colony of the larger (indeed the papacy had openly endorsed the right of England to rule over Ireland, though not to call the smaller island a 'kingdom' - which had to wait until Henry VIII broke with the papacy) it was perceived as reasonable to use a term that focused on the identity of the former, a term Great Brittaine being used by royal ordinance to describe the larger island in October 1604. FearÉIREANN 22:37 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

(I have bought a copy of The Isles to educate myself.) I withdraw may original point. But part of my problem stemmed from the fact that the article launches straight into English-Irish-Scottish politics without mentioning the original usage of British: to describe the Brythonic Celts, of most of Great Britain and of Brittany ("Little Britain")(I didn't know that). I'm going to edit this in. The other point that needs clarifying is that British Isles was in use well before there was any central control over the whole of the archipelago (including Scotland), and before it was even claimed. It's pushed beck to "before Henry VIII" above. This was a time when Great Britain was uncontestedly two nations, England and Scotland.

A lot of what's been written leads to the expectation the islands might be called "The English Isles". Re-reading, it looks like "British Isles" was first used to imply two nations: England-including-Ireland and Scotland. Is that right? If so, the article just confuses things by mentioning English rule extended to Scotland in 1603.

I am reminded of the way in which The Netherlands have come two be known as "Holland" to English-speakers. I gather this is because the sea-trading peoples of the provinces of North and South Holland were those most likely to be encountered by Englishmen, and so that name was transferred in popular usage to the country from which they came - without, as far as I know, any political spin-doctoring to encourage it. Does this throw any light on the question? Andy G 12:31 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Good buy with Norman Davies' The Isles. One bit of advice, though. I was severely disappointed to notice some rather monumental errors in it. I get the impression that Norman sort of ran out of steam half way through or realised that what is was writing was getting to be too big (been there, done that when writing history!) so the second half seems to cover things in a lot less detail than the first and some almightly blunders crop up, such as suggesting that de Valera won the Irish civil war, which would have come as a suprise to him, given that he had given a 'dump' arms command to his defeated followers and finished the civil war in gaol. There are other blunders too. It is a fascinating and thought-provoking book (I reviewed it for a newspaper) and had to say that it was such a pity that easily correctable mistakes have undermined its credibility. Whether that was fault of Norman or his editors I don't know but it was a great pity.

BTW please don't think I am some Irish republican Brit-hater etc. Far far from it. (On another article I worked on I was called a British Tory by someone!) But because of the complexity of Anglo-Irish relations, Ireland was seen for most of the last millennium as a form of english colony and so all the islands were seen as secondary to the main island, and even on the main island, Scotland though an independent kingdom was seeen as secondary to the main major kingdom on the island, England. The fact that the Scottish kingdom was seen as so unstable, with coups, murdered monarchs, regencies, rebellious nobility, constant English invasions, etc helped project the image that it was a minor kingdom; the fact that its ex-queen, Mary Queen of Scots, could be help a prisoner for many years in England and than be executed showed the real nature of power on the island. That James VI when he inherited the throne went to London and never returned to Edinburgh, indeed that he chose to reign as James I of Great Brittaine from the English not Scottish capital is indicative of the power relationship on the island. So there was no more perceived need to acknowledge Ireland in the terminology used than there was to include the Isle of Man. As Britain was a term applied to the major island, and it was the source of power among all the islands of the archipelago, it was understandable that the whole group was called the British Isles. Put simply, you had a lot of islands, one main one, on which stood a minor kingdom and a major one. Geographic terms are not created in isolation but tend to reflect the generally accepted power basis at the time. (Hence the use of the word 'America' to refer to the US, even though all parts of the American continent should have equal ownership of the term.) FearÉIREANN 14:04 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following inaccurate addition:

Some writers may choose to avoid referring to the island group as a whole in order to avoid giving offense.

No they don't. They simply choose not to use a particular term to describe the island group which is seen by many to have geo-political implications and to imply a political relationship between the countries in the group that actually ceased to exist 81 years ago. An increasing number use a less potentially offensive term. They don't stop referring to the island group altogether. Why has someone a problem with simply accepting that there are potential problems with this term? Instead we are getting amendments that imply the term is OK. If there is a problem, it is with people who may take offence with it. That is blatenty POV. The problem rests with the term itself and what it potentially implies. People genuinely and understandably have a problem with a term that has inaccurate geo-political implications.FearÉIREANN 20:28 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

(Presumably we should read the above as: ...the people who make the amendments think that if there is a problem, it is with people who may take offence with it... Andy G 12:20 6 Jul 2003 (UTC))

A late clarification about FearÉIREANN's comment above that "the fact that its ex-queen, Mary Queen of Scots, could be help a prisoner for many years in England and than be executed showed the real nature of power on the island" looks a non sequiter to me: Mary was overthrown, "abdicated" and had been imprisoned in Scotland for a year before she escaped and fled to her cousin who imprisoned her in England for 19 years before executing her, and the power struggle in Scotland meant only some wanted to restore her. When James VI also inherited the English thone his choice of London makes sense in terms of relative wealth and the need to build relationships in his new kingdom rather than a crude "power relationship". That's the problem with English-centred history - it's as much a political construct as geographical names are..dave souza 19:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but i noticed a conversation you had on the British isles discussion page where you referred to the Book "The Isles" by Norman Davis. Can i recommend to you two books to you on Cornish history. Mark Stoyle "West Britons, Cornish identities in th early modern period" Philip Payton " Cornwall a history" Both excellent and place the Cornish in their rightful context as a distinct peoples of the Atlantic Archipelago. Fulub le Breton 6/02/05

---

Ortelius makes clear his understanding that England, Scotland and Ireland were politically nominally at least separate in 1570 by the full title of his map... which translates as "A description of England, Scotland and Ireland, or the British Isles".

Does this imply separation? Couldn't someone have produced a map with the same title in, say, 1850? Andy G 23:20 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In cases where what is being referred to is the two largest islands, the term "Great Britain and Ireland" can be used. Of course, in those cases, the term "British Isles" would not be appropriate to begin with. There is no other brief term in common use to refer to the island group as a whole; "Great Britain, Ireland, and surrounding islands" gets at the basic meaning, but at the cost of conciseness

Is this not back to front? Surely the main islands are assumed to include their outlying islands unless you make it clear that's not what you intend. Great Britain and Ireland is a common substitute for The British Isles. To refer just to the two large islands you would surely have to say something like "the mainlands of Great Britain and Ireland". How would one describe the Geography of New Zealand? Andy G 23:20 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

213.84.6.203, you cannot keep expunging any mention of the Channel Islands simply because (like me) you don't think they ought to be considered part of the British Isles. It is not for Wikipedia to redefine English usage. If you can find an authorative reference that says that the Channel Isles are not part of the British Isles, then that can be mentioned in the article. However, I looked at this two years ago and could find no such reference, so I merely added a comment to the article pointing out that, geographically speaking, they don't really belong. (Unfortunately, someone has since removed this comment.) Note that the Jersey government website says that the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles, and the Guernsey government website also says that its islands form part of the British Isles. --Zundark 12:55, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, politically they are, but geographicaly they are not. My reference is any atlas. The government of those two channel islands can claim they are part of it, but they simply are not. Many British are also saying that the UK is not part of Europe, but we all know that they are part of it. Same thing with Greenland, politically Europe, geographicaly North-America. The British Isles do not have any political meaning, so we should put it in a geographical context. 213.84.6.203 01:45, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Not true, PML. British Isles has both a geographical and a political meaning. FearÉIREANN 01:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

British Islands is used on Jersey passports (added to article). Andy G 23:52, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why did you add it to this article rather than the British Islands article? By adding it here you have (incorrectly) implied that it means the same as British Isles. --Zundark 09:09, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

'Cos I'd not seen it. Updated and linked. Andy G 19:19, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Footnotes

The last two footnotes (textbooks.² & used².) refer to none of the footnotes, least of all "2". These footnotes are really hard to use (people need to open 2 broswers, or scroll up and down repetitively). It's best to incorporate them into the main body if at all possible. --Menchi 09:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fixed numbering. Those two notes were both supposed to refer to the same footnote about Norman Davies and "The isles". The paragraph about mapmakers had a note number but the footnote had been deleted ages ago. See revisions of

• 05:16, 14 Jun 2003
• 13:50, 16 Nov 2003
• 06:21, 2 Dec 2003
• 08:35, 2 Dec 2003

Andy G 20:21, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

It is asserted that

the term was interpreted to mean that Ireland was still ruled by Britain or had British royalty as its head of state, most famously when Mikhail Gorbachev on an short Irish visit in the late 1980s presumed that Ireland still had the British Queen as its head of state, due to its membership of the 'British Isles'

I have removed this assertion because I don't believe it to be true. Please provide details and corroborating evidence from an independent reputable published source. EdH 04:00, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

It happened in a live press conference being broadcast and was witnessed by thousands. It has been mentioned in a number of books on the Haughey era. I'll look up some, but as one of those who witnessed the event I can confirm that it happened. FearÉIREANN 16:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm intrigued by the mention of Nancy Reagan's gaffe over the term 'British Isles' during a state visit to Ireland. What did she say or do?

---

History of the 'British Isles'

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to have a page called 'History of the British Isles' (or whatever term you want to use for Britain and Ireland)? There has been a huge trend for 'British Isles' histories in the last few years (Eg Norman Davies' The Isles as well many others.) This gives a different perspective than looking at the different countries separately by concentrating on the interactions between them.

It does sound rather a good idea, yes.

James F. (talk) 23:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article says 'The term British Isles is no longer used in Irish state documents, has been abandoned in schoolbooks in the Republic of Ireland and is being phased out of textbooks'. What is the source which supports the idea that it ever was used by the Irish state and in Irish state documents? I'm 32, and I've never seen it. Moreover, I've never heard my parents or their parents use the expression.

Substitution of link (an apologetic self-defense!)

For the full Latin text of Pliny, I substituted the LacusCurtius page for that at the Latin Library; not because it was my own, but because I know that the text at Latin Library was copied from mine -- and here's the clincher -- unfortunately debasing it with various errors, mostly in the numbers (bars removed from over the numbers, so that distances in miles were turned into distances in feet!). Also, the text at Latin Library has not kept pace with the ongoing corrections of typos in the original, but typos continue to be caught and corrected on the Lacus site; so that the resource is better.

latest changes by an anon

I don't like that part about a mysterious ""early source" at all. Would you please state which source that is? That would help a lot to make the changes useful. Will some Expert for the British Isles have a look at it? Lady Tenar 22:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I appologize for that statement. I see that you have put much thought in your changes and i appreciate that very much. It was not nice to pick at you like that, sorry. I wrote it after some time of watching recent changes, i think that made me paranoid. Now i go away and leave this article to those who really know something about the matter, as you do. Lady Tenar 21:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• No mystery at all. It is the Life of Saint Columba by Adomnán of Iona written in the seventh century. Anyone familiar with early British and Irish history will know of it.

• I just had a quick read through Gildas and the Letter and Confessio of Saint Patrick and they contain no collective term for the archipelago, neither do the Irish annals which were begun circa 550 as far as I remember. Everything else (Bede, "Nennius", Anglo-Saxon chronicle, etc) is later than the Life of Saint Columba so it does look as if the term "British Isles" had no currency in the archipelago until a quite late date. I think it would be useful if someone could come up with its first mention in a native source so we can see the context for its emergence. I suspect that it may be a political context. If so it would seem to knock the "its a geographical term so get over it" argument on the head 195.92.168.168 10:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Having had a good read through the arguments further up the page it seems that nobody has considered the "Britishification" that occurred in post-Norman England. The body of "King Arthur" was dug up at Glastonbury and a "Round Table" was put on display at Winchester, all of which added the aura of timeless "British" (ie: pre-English) legitimacy to what was a very recently established Norman monarchy. Contemporary romances portrayed Arthur as an imperial figure who held the Scots and Irish in subjection so what would be more natural than to have the post-Norman English kings press the suitably imperial term "British Isles" into service in support of their campaigns of conquest in Scotland and Ireland. I do not have the details handy, but I know that post-Norman Canterbury claimed dominion over the Irish church on the basis of similar unhistorical hokum 195.92.168.171 17:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• In view of the surprisingly late entry of the term into English (1621) it seems to me that there is very little to support the view that "British Isles" had any currency, except among classical geographers, their copyists the renaissance/later mapmakers and users of these maps. I think the article now needs to be recast to emphasise the unreliable nature of these classical geographers when describing far flung lands. It seems to me that the term "British Isles" was until modern times little different to "here be dogheads and griffons". I will leave things for a week or three to see if any discussion develops 195.92.168.178 20:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Developing discussion..

It seems to me that the terms Britannia or British Isles pre-existed as a mapmakers designation when James VI & I used "Great Britain" as a political construct to provide a shared (ancient) identity for his kingdoms, with the "local" use of "British Isles" following on from that construct. It would be interesting to know if the original formulation of "Great Britain" excluded Ireland. References to Three Kingdoms suggest autonomous countries united under his (autocratic) rule, with the terms no more indicating imposing subservience to a dominant country than "Europe" does today to most in the EU. The Irish confederate leadership sought agreement with Charles I in 1642, and in the Williamite war in Ireland James VII & II was accepted as king, suggesting that their quarrels were with policies rather than looking for a new monarch. This situation obviously differed in the 20th century with British becoming a nationality which Republican Irish felt opposed to, though well into this period they were referring to "cruel England" rather than Britain. It's not clear just when this objection to "British" started, but an encyclopedia should be wary of projecting current political correctness back onto the past. It is of course right that the current sensitivities should be recorded, but the use of "British Isles" for the archipelago is likely to remain in common use outside Eire for the foreseeable future. dave souza 01:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Where the article says " the term is no longer used in Irish state documents, has been abandoned in Irish schoolbooks and is being phased out of textbooks." does this mean the Republic of Ireland, or do these changes all apply to Northern Ireland as well?..dave souza 19:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey Dave. You have no idea what you're talking about! Irish people never ever considered themsleves British. We were Gaelic (Gaelach) or Irish. Brythonic Celts were considerd Britons which more or less relates to the Welsh and Cornish people today (and the Bretons too in Brittany but lets leave that aside). By the way you don't even know that 'Eire' is not another name for Ireland (or Republic of Ireland) in English! It would be the same as calling Scotland 'Alban', or Wales 'Cymru'. Eire, Cymru and Alban are only used when speaking in the Celtic languages. Your lack of knowledge in general about these matters seriously undermines your credibility. Sinead.

Dave, it's all quite muddled. First off, let me state this clearly as I suspect there may be confusion on this: Ireland did not just decide one day "Hey, let's do our own thing and call ourselves Irish, that British label is a bit passé". The identity of Irish was always there, (well for hundreds of years anyway, and the whole idea of nationhood is not a straightforward one). The point is that it Ireland was never British. Even when it was legally united with Britain it was as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". This was a legal/political construct, a union but not an identity. I'm pretty sure no-one ever thought of Ireland as "British" in its nature even then. A possession of Britain perhaps, but not British per se. In any case, it's certainly not the case now. Don't people get this? It's not a word or two were removed from some official documents, it's that the entire notion of being British was always rejected. Whw is there such a desire to lump them together anyway? There are actually very few situations when would really want to as far as I can see. Just what is the attachment to the term? And when there is a need, what's wrong with "Britain & Ireland"?? Paulc1001 18:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

B[r]ia

User:195.8.175.117 suggested

Bria ( standing for "BRitish and Irish Archipelago") with "Brihan" being the adjective to describe e.g. an inhabitant of Bria. This has the advantage of being concise,descriptive,politically inclusive and distinctive."

It would interesting to learn from residents of the Islands about its utility and euphony. It would be especially interesting to hear from citizens of the Republic of Ireland.User;Brihan)

When I lived in Dublin I noticed that people would say simply "these islands" to mean Britain and Ireland. The conversations were never specific enough to determine whether the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were included in the term. One term I like (and that gets three whole Google hits!) is "Hiberno-British archipelago" --Angr 07:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is there such a desire to lump them together anyway? There are actually very few situations when would really want to as far as I can see. Just what is the attachment to the term? And when there is a need, what's wrong with "Britain & Ireland"?? I mean, is there a pressing need for a collective term for other 2 country pairs like the US and Mexico except "the US and Mexico". Yes, there is North America but specifically US & Mexico for instance? Also, "North America" seems to have no objectors that I've heard. "British Isles" has millions who can't simply be ignored. Paulc1001 18:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

(I've just added this to the list of Outstanding Problems). "Great Britain and Ireland" has the major problem that, if you just glance at it, or if you hear it read out, it's very easy to mistake it for "Great Britain and Northern Ireland", which is a common term for the UK specifically. So you have a real danger that the term for the two countries could very easily be interpreted as referring to only one, which would, hmm, cause more problems than it solves.

On a lighter note, I've just been doing some editing to the list of alternate names suggested; one mentioned North European Archipelago. The thought of telling Conservative backbenchers that not only were we to stop using the word British, we were to replace it with the word European... oh, wow, it's priceless. (This image may not be quite as funny to non UK residents) Shimgray | talk | 02:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

And what of Cornubia?

As usual there is no discussion of Cornwall and the Cornish. many maps up until 1600 showed Cornubia as a distinct region on a par if not with Scotia and Anglia then most definitely with Wallia. Not least of which would be Gerardus Mercator Atlas, see the "CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") 1564"

• Mercators Atlas

Can i recommend two books for you edification on Cornish history "Cornwall a History" by Philip Payton of Exeter university. "West Britons, Cornish identities in the early modern period" by Mark Stoyle of South Hampton University.

Also why are no links given to works by Gildas or Geoffrey of Monmouth. If you are going to have links to the anglocentric pseudo historian Bede why not some for these two as well?

Also check these two websites.

• BBC
• British Isles

Fulub le Breton

I think I miss your point—what of Cornubia? Why does it deserve special mention? It is currently identified as part of the United Kingdom, or England on a subnational level. Mercia and Wessex were also once subnational entities, they have no mention nor is there particular need to... --Oldak Quill 16:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Simply because the Cornish as a nation (many see themselves as such) still exist along with their language. Mercians and Wessaxons where Germanic peoples who developed into the English, nobody (almost) identifies themselves with these historic subnational entities. This is not the case for Cornwall and the Cornish. If there is no need to mention Cornwall then their is no need to mention Wales either. The Cornish are not a subnational element, they are a national element of a super national construction, the UK. Bretagne 44 15/3/05

What about Dispute over the name of the British Isles ?

There are already Dispute over the name of the Persian Gulf and Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan articles. From what I've read here, it seems this geographical naming dispute probably merits it own article as well.--Pharos 19:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. The consistency of the naming doesn't single out this dispute in any way, perfectly N PoV. The link would be as at Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan, perfectly plain, isolated for visibility, right at the bottom. --Wetman 20:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about Hiberno-British Isles?

Ed

Added comment Other possibilities would be:

 Anglo-Celtic Isles

- Celtic Isles

- Atlantic Isles

How about the British just adjust to end of empire and quit their irredentist and jingoistic claims to Ireland? I have yet to meet an Irish person who views his/her country as being in the "British isles". It is the views of the Irish about their country that matter. And it is as simple as that.193.1.172.163

Links or sections on...

Flora and fauna, geology, langiuage, migration patterns, production/exports/imports, climate etc. Would be nice, as well as the extensive discussion over the term. Rich Farmbrough 11:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term "Anglo-Irish Isles" is totally unacceptable as is the term "Anglo-Irish" in itself to refer to relations between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. The term "Anglo" clearly refers to England, yet there are Scots, Welsh and Irish in the United Kingdom also! "Brito-Hibernian Isles" might be alright but I have still to understand why we even need a single term to describe these islands.

And while we are on the subject, there are two other terms commonly used by the UK media that are perhaps just as bad as "British Isles" or even worse. Possibly even more patronising to Irish people is the use of "The Mainland" to refer to Britain when speaking of Ireland and the Six Counties in particular. The Six Counties of "Northern Ireland" are physically joined to the Irish mainland already!! There simply isn't any need for this term. The supposition being that Ireland is not a distinct nation but another of the "British Isles" lying off "The Mainland"!!

In sporting events, the UK media loves to report on the progress of the "Home Nations" and of course they must include Ireland in these "Home Nations" of theirs! Ireland is not one of the UK's "Home Nations" but a seperate people with its own language and history!!

Alan, Dublin.

There are plenty of people in the "Six Counties" of Northern Ireland who happily refer to Great Britain as "the mainland". Regards the Republic being a "Home Nation", while I would be inclined to agree, there are large numbers of Irish people in Britain who might appreciate the extra attention the Republic's teams get in contrast with "foreign" sides. Beano ni

Ireland not part of Britiish Isles

Sorry, but it's just not correct or acceptable to include Ireland in the British Isles; or more relevantly to use use the term British Isles to include Ireland. This really is not a matter of debate, it is simply NOT just a geographical term.

How about if we just start calling the English Channel "La Manche"? The point is that these are not just simple and neutral "geographic" terms.

Paulc1001 23:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is. Adam 00:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Ireland is not part of Britain, but it is part of the British Isles. The term "British Isles" is a geographical one, like the English Channel or Irish Sea, and does not connote ownership. --Jonathan Drain 19:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[1]

Agreed. "British Isles" is purely geographical. Ireland is as much part of the British Isles as Canada is part of North America. It doesn't imply any political "belonging" of ROI to the UK, any more than saying "Canada is in North America" implies "Canada is part of the USA". Any encyclopedia worth its keep will recognise the British Isles as including (the island of) Eire. Waggers 12:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Canada is, of course, on the continent of North America. Ireland is not on the island of Britain. Ireland is as much in the 'British Isles' as Britain is in the 'Irish Isles'. Saying Ireland is in the British Isles is like saying that Portugal is on the 'Spanish Peninsula'. The only reason the name has become the Geographical name and has stuck is because of British influence on world affairs during the 19th century. The Irish were never consulted and I think they have a right to complain.

The term "British Isles" long predated the British state. Indeed, that's why the English chose the word "British" to describe themselves, when they annexed Scotland, because it was a pre-existing term. As a student of Anglo-Saxon history, I find the terms British and English mutually exclusive. TharkunColl 00:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

- Indeed the term 'British' predated the British state. It was the Roman term (Brittania) for the island of Scotland, Wales and England. Ireland was never a part of Brittania, Ireland had its own name; Hibernia.

If you had read the article you would have discovered that Ireland was part of the British Isles, even during Roman times. TharkunColl 00:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

How about if we just start calling the English Channel "La Manche"? The point is that these are not just simple and neutral "geographic" terms.

If you are speaking in French you should call the English Channel la Manche. Similarly, in English the name of the archipelago is British Isles. What's its name in Irish? Markus Schmaus 00:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

changes by 83.70.231.14, November 11, 2005

I have reverted these changes to the previous version. I will explain why. First off, it's not that I think the previous version is very good either. However, thses changes were too much even for me, and I'm usually very vociferous on this subject. While I understand the motivation (I loathe this term also), it's both over the top in tone and complexity, and also just wrong. As far as I'm aware the term British Isles was not a formal legal term, so nothing magic happened in 1922 with Irish Independence. It's simply not true that the term magically disappeared then as many people do use it since then. What is at issue is its correctness and acceptability, not that it exists. This article is a mess, the introduction especially is just so badly written and convoluted. I am strongly tempted to revert to an earlier version I wrote, which I felt was clear and simple, but balanced in tone. Paulc1001 08:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The term is outdated and should be confined to history at this stage, just like the term British Empire. Stop using it! Ireland is not part of the British Isles. That is official. Ireland stopped using the term from 1922 (but obviously Northern Ireland unionists love and embrace the term). Ask the Irish Government if you are in any doubt about this. Contact the Department of Foreign Affairs in Ireland. Serious thought and study went into this, with scholars from Geography and History Departments in Irish Universities, to determine the historical usage of the term, and it was found to be merely a hangover from British colonial days. There is no equivalent term in the Irish language and there is no mention of it in any manuscripts or books from Ireland. We may as well start calling England part of the Roman Empire if we are to follow your logic!

This anonymous user is talking politically. Geographically, the British Isles are all the islands off the north-west coast of Europe. That includes Ireland. Hence I have reverted this user's changes. Stephenb (Talk) 18:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, but history and culture. Geographically Ireland is NOT part of the British Isles. Your ignorance on this matter is breathtaking. Have you ever been to Ireland? Have you ever studied the origin of the term? Before British political influence over Ireland the term didn't exist in the English or Celtic languages. It is you and your kind that continue to make it political, can't you even see that? Sinead

By the way Stephenb your use of the term British Isles sounds truly from the 19th Century so forgive me if you are over 100 years old. Your view is just that, a view, whereas the position I stated is factual, and has the backing of the Government of Ireland, so there can be no debate on the matter. Simple as that. Any gripes you have bring it up with the Department of Foreign Affairs of Ireland. Join with us in the 21st Century. There are millions of Irish people living in Britain and a million British people living on the island of Ireland. Dropping the historic British Empire era term British Isles doesn't diminish the Britishness of the British in Northern Ireland, but more accurately reflects the true historic and cultural use of the term British (encompassing Great Britain and Brittany), relating to the Brythonic Celts. Whether the people of Britain choose to drop the use of the term British to satisfy the Scots, Welsh and Cornish in a political sense is a matter for the British. Ireland has stated it's case on it's geographical description - it is Ireland, and is not part of the British Isles.

I am quite bemused. Going through the reference sources I have to hand - Whitakers 2004 classes features of the Republic as in the British Isles. Pears 2004 (K25) -

British Is., archipelago, N.W. Europe; comprising 2 lge. Is. of Great Britain and Ireland and 5,000 sm. Is.

the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

A group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland, and adjacent smaller islands.

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition:

The islands of Great Britain and Ireland and a number of smaller islands off their coasts

(For some reason, my OED does not contain "British Isles". I really must get a full-size edition)

It is true that the government of the Republic avoids using the term, but this does not mean it is wrong - it is simply quite similar to the use of "American" by the United States. The Canadian government does not normally talk about "being in America", because it would get confusing and have unfortunate political overtones, even though it is geographically accurate; it's much the same case here.

Do you have a citation for the Irish government explicitly stating they do not consider Ireland part of the British Isles, or are you simply inferring this from their not using the term? Shimgray | talk | 19:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In terms of geography, the British Isles is a description of an archipelago that consists a series of islands, the principal ones of which are Britain and Ireland. Politically they were also a unit. That ceased in 1922. The article has to cover both the Geographic and political understandings of the term. The anonymous contributor is mistaken in his understanding of Iveagh House's views on the issue and mixing up the geopolitical, the geographic and the political. One of those still applies and defines Ireland as part of the geographic unit, the British Isles. Ireland rightly does not use the term because of the confusion it engenders. But not using it is not the same as it not existing in its geographic content. There are however moves to arrange a common name for the archipelago, possibly the Anglo-Irish Archipelago. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not similar to America and USA. America was a person (Amerigo from Spain I think), does not signify a race occupying the continent, both North and South. Whereas 'British' related originally to the Brythonic Celts of Britain, not the Goidelic Celts of Ireland. 'British and Gaelic Isles' is most correct I suppose in that historic sense, but Anglo-Celtic is probably the best term in the modern situation. The term 'British' was later 'hijacked' in a sense by the English, but that's another matter.

The Irish Government explicitly answered this question again in mid 1990s, it's final definitive answer. They confirmed that Ireland was NOT part of the British Isles and requested the term to be dropped. Some foreign TV stations such as French language TV5 stopped using the term 'Les Isles Britannique' around that time. But ignorance remains, it will take time to phase out it's usage. It was Dick Spring, Minister of Foreign Affairs who made the statement around 1995 I think. I will look for a link to the formal release.

I think the anonymous contributor (Sinead?) is thinking of the term "British" meaning "British-owned" or "British-inhabited", which is a political interpretation not a strictly geographical one. Most other people simply accept that the group of islands should have a name, and since the biggest island in the archipelego is "Great Britain" (whether or not this relates to Brittany is largely a historical naming irrelevancy), then British Isles is quite appropriate (and by far the most common). I don't think anyone is saying that "British Isles" means that Ireland is in any way governed or even inhabited by anone other than the Irish (nor do I personally want it to be). By saying that Ireland is not part of the British Isles, would you also say they are not part of the archipelego (i.e. denying Ireland its geographical place)? Perhaps it should be anchored off Australia instead (joke) :-) My argument is not political, merely common-sense geographical nomenclature; I have no interest in the history of the term, just that is the common usage today and therefore belongs in an encyclopaedia of today. Stephenb (Talk) 20:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, subject to the proviso that the article must make clear that its usage is controversial and found offensive by millions living on the archipelago and for that reason is no longer used in official documents in any of the states on the archipelago and is has also been dropped from usage by many media outlets. I understand from contacts (though as it is primary research it can't go into the article) that there is agreement at the highest level among the various governments on the archipelago to axe the term; geographers too have agreed to axe it. They simply have not agreed yet on the replacement term, but British Isles as a term has effectively been binned. It is just that no-one has emptied the bin yet! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

'but British Isles as a term has effectively been binned'

What? When did this happen? I must have missed this. Can someone point me to a source for this? Dbnull 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Stephenb, just because it says so in an encyclopedia doesn't mean it's correct! The term is still in use by some, but the general trend is for the burying of this archaic term. Names of countries and cities across the globe are being 'de-colonialised', such as Mumbai, Beijing, Myanmar and so on. Politically motivated 'geographical' terms are not immune to this trend. 'British Isles' is on the way out. Spread the word! Sinead

Sinead, "just because it says so in an encyclopedia doesn't mean it's correct" - in fact, you're reversing what I said - my belief is that, because it's in common use, it deserves to be in an encyclopaedia, not the other way around. Nor do I claim it to be "correct". I agree that some people find the term contraversial, and have no problems with there being a trend to change it (or saying this in the article itself), but the fact remains that an encyclopaedia chronicles current information (how the world is), not how (some) authors or publishers believe the world should be. Currently, it is the common term for the archipeligo, and that includes Ireland. By all means, spread the word and get it changed, but inaccurately editing an encyclopaedia is not the place to do this! Stephenb (Talk) 16:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Stephenb, "Currently, it is the common term for the archipeligo, and that includes Ireland". Common term where? Not in Ireland! Not generally accepted or used on one of the two major islands. Never was used by the natives in Ireland - it would be an absurd idea for people in Ireland to use this term, especially in Gaelic times up until 1600. Not accepted officially by the modern Irish state. The only reason people outside Ireland use it is because the much more powerful British state have skewed and have written their version of the history and coined the terms to suit themselves. It's a very Anglocentric term, quite obviously. Subtle propaganda. Naturally the world was being told for centuries that Ireland was part of the British Isles but the climate has changed now, old British Empire terms have to be phased out. Personally I have always found the term annoying and offensive, and have only ever heard it from outside of Ireland, never within. So, the term is only commonly used as you say outside of Ireland. Doesn't one of the two islands have more of a say than the rest of the world? If Britain wants a term, well that's for them to decide. If Ireland is to be included we have to be consulted. Ireland isn't imposing 'Talamh an Eisc' on Newfoundland, or 'An tIorua' on Norway, though these are the old names we use in Irish. It is up to the people in each land to name or change their islands etc. Siam is now Thailand. Burma is now Myanmar. Also applies to geagraphical terms. Sinead

"Subtle propaganda" - sigh, I'm rather fed up with you accusing me of being political, when this is not the case. Ireland may not use the term "British Isles" but unfortunately, this encyclopaedia is not just for the people in Ireland. "Doesn't one of the two islands have more of a say than the rest of the world?" - not necessarily, no. You do make a very good case that the term shouldn't be in common usage - by all means make that case in the article or another article, but the encyclopadia should reflect current terminology - but the fact remains that most of the English-speaking world uses the term "British Isles" to include the island of Ireland, and therefore the article should reflect that. Now, I shan't respond to your political accusations further - please find a more appropriate place to argue them. Stephenb (Talk) 10:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well put Sinead. It's quite incredible how otherwise intelligent people simply cannot grasp that there may be no such thing as a "purely geographical" name. A name is always coined by someone and reflects someone's point of view in *some* way. Is this so difficult to understand? I suspect it would be very rapidly grasped if the positions were reversed. Shall we rename the article on the English Channel to La Manche? Why not, it's a commonly used "geographical term"! Shall we describe Britain as an Island off France? Of course not! Some people also seem to fail to understand that the term British Isles is not just incorrect but also offensive. It's not to disparage being British (please read that carefully!!), it's merely to reflect that Ireland is NOT a "British Isle". The terms exists, fair enough, let's discuss its existence and usage, but in a way that clearly reflects it is not a universal term and should be deprecated. In fairness, I find most who use it agree it to be outmoded and undesirable once made aware of the issues. Wibblywobbly 12:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ireland is not a British isle. (well, parts of it are). It is, however, a British Isle. There is a small but subtle difference; the former is an island that is part of Britain, the latter an island that is part of the British Isles. (Compare "American state", a term which can mean Guatemala or Georgia, but rarely both) Shimgray | talk | 12:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Shimgray, no offence but your analogy is misplaced and not directly relevant. You illustrate this yourself by saying "American State" is never reallt used for Guatemala. The difference is that "British Isles" is used a lot and is apparently even the default term for many, which is precisly what causes offence. If it was an occasional term it might not cause a problem; the debate is precisely because it is posited as the "standard" or default term. Wibblywobbly 14:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you - no-one ever goes around calling Ireland a "British (I/i)sle", either! The plurals of both are common - in "the British Isles", or in such uses as the OAS - and in standard use. Wikipedia describes usage, it does not sek to shape it. Shimgray | talk | 14:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. By being literal, you miss the real point. That's exactly what they do go around calling it! By including Ireland in the "British Isles" there is a clear implication that Ireland is (British|a British Isle). How is that difficult to follow? I presume we're all ok with what an adjective is, yes? Yes, Wikipedia describes usage; a full description of the usage of this term would clearly describe the associated problems and how the usage has changed or is changing. The article (as I would write it) fully acknowledges this. Where's the problem? Language and usage change. In 1770, a common name for a large part of what is now the USA was "The Colonies". Will we continue to use that term forever?? Of course not. Yes, we may refer to the term, even use it in screenplays of historical films, or use it humorously or ironically. We do not, however, posit it as the correct or common name for the US. The fact remains, the term is not universal and is not neutral and is not simply geographical. What part of that don't people understand?? As I observe above, people would understand it rather quickly if the postions were reversed. Wibblywobbly 14:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Language and usage might change, but it hasn't yet. The British Isles is still easily the most common name for the group of islands; wikipedia has to follow that convention, not try and lead a shift in usage to something more politically palatable. --Khendon 20:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You miss the point spectacularly. Do try to actually read what was written. Just a suggestion... Paulc1001 22:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I've read what is written, thanks, and it still looks to me as if people are confusing "is" and "ought to be". --Khendon 07:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah sure if it isn't a political term lets rename it the 'Irish Isles' reflecting those islands surrounding the Irish Sea. Makes perfect sense to me and would have been the name probably if Ireland had won the wars. Now do you guys get it? If it were Irish Isles would you find it strange? Would you object? (I'm assuming you are British which may not be the case, but you get the point). By the way Irish Sea is an Anglocentric term too in reality, not that I object to it, it's not a nation, but it reflects the sea to Ireland from England's perspective. If Ireland was the dominant nation it would have been called the British Sea most likely. We can swap if you like, haha! Irish Isles for British Sea. I'm joking to illustrate the sillyness of it all. Sinead

Shimgray, the British isle vs Isle(s) nonsense is just ridiculous and not worthy of a serious reply. Sinead

Apologists of the term "British Isles" maintain that it has ancient origins, something to do with Ptolemy calling Ireland and Britain the "Pretannic Isles" on some map or other, completely ignoring the fact that the knowledge of the world in Ancient Greece was in many ways as patchy as our own knowledge of the surface of Titan in our own time. If Ptolemy was referring to the peoples who spoke the British Celtic language, or Prythonic language of England, Wales and southern Scotland then he was, for the most part, correct in speaking of the "Pretannic Isles" but there is no concrete evidence to suggest that this Prythonic Celtic was spoken in Ireland.

The simple fact of the matter is that the term is both politically and geographically incorrect. The idea that "British Isles" is merely a geographical term is utter nonsense. "British Isles" is an extremely jingoistic, Victorian and imperialistic term. It is immaterial that most people in Britain use it as a "harmless" geographical term. As an Irish person, I find it deeply offensive. I live in the sovereign Republic of Ireland not in just another "British isle".

The adjective "British" refers exclusively to the island of Great Britain, however, in the absence of a satisfactory term for the United Kingdom and its people as a whole, "British" is used widely to describe the people, government etc. of the United Kingdom. The term "Ukonian" has been put forward in the past as a possible alternative term to "British" when referring to the United Kingdom. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using "British" when the term is used correctly, to describe the people, cultures, geography etc. of Britain, which is an island composed of Scotland, England and Wales. This has already been officially acknowledged by the United Kingdom state in its own official title; The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If Northern Ireland were just another part of Great Britain there simply wouldn't be any need to mention it in the official title of the state.

There simply isn't any need for the term "British Isles" anyway. Can someone explain to me what exactly is wrong with the term "Britain and Ireland" or "Ireland and Britain"?? One does not refer to the Iberian Peninsula as the "Spanish Peninsula" nor to peninsular Scandinavia as the "Swedish Peninsula" nor to Corsica and Sardinia as the "Sardinian Isles", yet it seems to be perfectly acceptable to speak of Ireland and Britain as the "British Isles"!

The twenty-six county Republic of Ireland has been an independent state for almost eighty four years now, yet the British media continue to bandy this term about as though the sovereignty of this state were non-existent! It is most interesting that of the main stream British broadcasters, Sky News is the only television channel, as far as I know, which has a clear policy of not using the term British Isles in any of its reports. All weather reporters speak of "Britain and Ireland" and I've yet to hear "British Isles" on Sky News. If only this were the case for the BBC, ITV etc.

If, as apologists claim, "British Isles" is merely a geographical term, devoid of any political overtones, then does it follow that Ireland is a "British isle", that, therefore, its cities and towns are "British" cities and towns, indeed, can, therefore, people who inhabit those towns and cities be accurately described as "British" people? It is when one starts to evaluate the term in these terms, that any defence of the term begins to fall to bits.

To those who say that most of the main political parties, including the nationalist ones, raise no objections to the term, I say this: the vast majority of people in Ireland never ever use the term "British Isles" and find it repugnant. The fact that more people are not more vocal about this is that most people feel that nothing can be done about it, that the British media have been let away with this for years and can effectively use any terminology they like when referring to this state. Politicians are no different. "British Isles" is, indeed, an informal term but that does not make it any less inaccurate or patronising to Irish people.

A further argument commonly made is that Scottish or Welsh or Cornish nationalists occaisionally get hot under the collar about the term British, yet, the use of British to refer to Scotland, Wales or Cornwall is at least geographically correct. All three are physically joined to Britain unlike Ireland which is seperated from Britain by the Irish Sea.

The only fair and decent alternative to "British Isles" is "Britain and Ireland" or "These Islands". Neither side of the political fence in Ireland could possibly object to this!!

Alan, Dublin, Ireland.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ulster"

"Great Britain and Ireland" would be more appropriate than "Britain and Ireland", as Britain (without the Great) is, in common usage at least, simply a substitute for the United Kingdom rather than the island of Great Britain. Beano ni

Beano is right, Britain refers to the country; Great Britain is the island. But "Great Britain and Ireland" is not a suitable substitute for "the British Isles" as the former only refers to the biggest two islands in the group. The only term in widespread use for the whole group of islands is "the British Isles". Waggers 09:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cornubia

Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564:[2] [3]

Sebastian Munster produced maps depicting Cornwall as a distinct region of Britain in 1538, 1540, and 1550. [4]

George Lily produced a map showing Cornubia in 1556.

Girolamo Ruscelli did the same in 1561 portraying Cornubia alongside Anglia, Wallia and Scotia.

Johannes Honter followed this trend in 1561.

Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.

From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively. At this time Cornwall also seems to become an English county. Why, there is no record of an act of union or annexation of Cornwall?

Bretagne 44 16:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

British Isles (terminology)

From Talk:British_Isles_(terminology)#British_Isles_.3D_Redundant.

Is is just my imagination or would one article suffice? I think one article would be better than two articles as the British Isles (terminology) article is essentially a disambiguation that has become a dumping ground for the "heavy" material and a kind of Politics and geography of the British Isles that is an uneccessary rehash of what this article should be. Djegan 20:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• No, I think there should be two articles. British Isles describes the geographic area, while British Isles (terminology) is not about the isles but defines the various terms such as Britain, Great Britain, etc. You may wish to rename this "terminology" to a more suitable name, if one can be found. --Jonathan Drain 19:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[5]. Addendum: I do think, however, that some of the content of British Isles (terminology) should be moved to British Isles.

Celts in Britain and Ireland ... where?

"The inhabitants of the British Isles in classical times were the Celtic Bruthin or Priteni, later known as the "Brythons", who were in Great Britain and Ireland some time before the 5th century BC"

Now look, that's flat out wrong, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the Celts were ever the predominant population of either island at any time in our history. So along those lines I'm going to rewrite this section. Fergananim 19:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Infact, modern athropology has proven that the Celts did not invade Ireland or Britain on mass and that the inhabitants of both islands today are primarily descendant of Stone Ages poulations. For more information, see haplogroup R1B.

Offensive to Scottish and Welsh people?

Can anybody substantiate the claim that the "British Isles" is offensive to Scottish and Welsh people? I've never heard of that being the case, and it's a bit bonkers since Scotland and Wales definitely *are* part of Britain. --Khendon 20:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add in the mention but I know I have been told by Scottish nationalists that they find it offensive. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no-one in Scotland or Wales finds the term offensive or at least if they do they must be a pretty small minority. Scotland and Wales are both part of the island of Great Britain and the thing below about the Scots not being descended from the ancient Britons is also wrong - lowland Scotland, always the most populous part was, divided up between Brythonic tribes such as the Dumnonii and Votadini and later the Brythonic kingdoms of Strathclyde and Gododdin. The fact that so many placenames in Southern Scotland have Brythonic elements - Lanark, Carstairs, and that its largest city Glasgow has a name that ultimately derives from Brythonic Glas Cau and its capital Edinburgh's name comes from an ancient Anglicisation of the Brythonic Dinas Eidyn is also evidence against this. The Picts (who probably spoke a language very closely related to Brythonic) were only one ethnic group in the territory that would become Scotland which would lately be as much Germanic culturally as Celtic anyway. In any case Scotland and Wales are part of the island of Great Britain and would only stop being British if continental drift moved them off into the Atlantic. I think this question probably springs from the widespread confusions arising to the exact meanings of England/English and Britain/British which are not the same thing? 82.2.118.2

The word Britain originates from the territory concerned with the ancient British culture. This culture was seperate to that of the Picts, and was confined to the southern two third of what we now call the Island of Britain. As a result, many Scots do not regard themselves as British because their ancestry is not British. Same logic applies to the Irish.

In acestral terms, the Welsh, Cronish and Bretons are more British that the English.

BBC: English and Welsh are races appart

But please do note that this article over simplifies things and that the English are infact more British than Anglo-Saxon in terms of ancestry.

Rosser et al. "Y-chromosomal diversity in Europe is clinal and influenced primarily by geography, rather than by language.", Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Dec;67(6):1376-81.

Polzsa 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The map

Let's assume that the correct and neutral name for this group of islands remains "British Isles", until such a time as a new name is agreed upon by the involved parties/governments/language governing bodies (whether "Bria" or "Hiberno-British Isles" or "Anglo-Celtic Island" or "Atlantic Islands" as suggested further up on this talk page). Are the Channel Islands included in this geographic region? Other sources state that their alternative name is Anglo-Normannic Islands and that they are not located within the British Isles, but rather lie deep in the Gulf of Saint Malo ("Malvinian Bay") between the Cotentin Peninsula and Britanny. Moreover, the map intended to illustrate the extent of the British Isles depicts only some of the islands mentioned in the text, notably omitting the Shetlands and the Isles of Scilly. Should this omission be taken to reflect on correct usage and meaning of the term? //Big Adamsky 21:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the numbered map. Apart from being Big and Ugly, it excludes Shetland and the Channel Islands, and does not label the Isle of Man. And four maps is too many. Though personally I don't miss the Scilly Isles. An improved version could replace the cities map. Joestynes 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if the map of the islands should go so should the map of the cities as it does not show all of the cities, no its point of view. Incidentially that "big and ugly" map was mine. Djegan 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And again

The Republic of Ireland has not been part of the British Isles since 1922, i am not sure why people have an issue with this. There seems to be no problem with every other country in the world who have acheived independance from the British Empire so why not Ireland?? The British Isles is a term to describe the lands that make up Great Britain, Ireland is not in Great Britain.

You Cannot just use geography as an argument for this, a nations history come into play also, Is Portugal part of the spanish peninsula? Is Cananda a state of the USA? I will be editing this article in a few days to show that Ireland was part of the British Isles until 1922 when she became a nation of her own and claimed independance from Britain. If anyone has an issue with this then you have a chance to respond but be prepared to back up your arguments as to why Ireland is in the British Isles. --Murphyweb 07:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The arguments have been repeated time and again on this talk page. Wouldn't it be easier to read them rather than have somebody type them out again? --Khendon 07:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The equivalent of "Canada is not a state of the US" is "The Republic is not part of the United Kingdom", which no-one disputes. Saying "The Republic is not part of the British Isles" is equivalent to "Canada is not part of North America". Please consider your analogies - or, as the man says, read the page - before stating them as fact. To the best of my knowledge, the physical geography of Europe did not change in 1922; the "British Isles" is a physical group with a political name, not a political group.

(PS: Portugal is part of the Iberian Peninsula. Iberia is an archaic name for an area vaguely corresponding to modern Spain. I don't believe the Portugese get upset over this) Shimgray | talk | 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Republic of Ireland has not been part of the British Isles since 1922" - not true. The Republic of Ireland has not been part of the United Kingdom since 1922. The UK is a political entity, the British Isles is a purely geographical one; they are not the same thing! Unless some great earthquake that we don't know about has moved the lump of land occupied by the Republic of Ireland to a different part of the planet, the Republic of Ireland is still contained within the British Isles. Waggers 12:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Tag

Why the unverified and original research tag? Robdurbar 18:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing the "Alternative terms" section, which reads like an "add your suggestion here" section. The only 2 I've seen used unselfconsciously in Ireland are not listed: "these islands" (common in The Irish Times; not "these Isles") and "Britain and Ireland" (very different from "Great Britain and Ireland") Joestynes 19:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if its for that I think I'll remove the tag - all these terms are used and a sources provided Robdurbar 09:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Ireland article titles

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

With respect to the author of the first three paragraphs as of writing, I believe that the introduction to this article is in need of avoiding weasel words! To me, they read as if the author is an Irishman displeased with how ubiquitous the term "British Isles" is, and I get the impression that he doesn't want anyone to hear the term spoken without knowing that it's not so popular in the Republic. Highlights are mine:

The British Isles is a term traditionally given in Britain to the group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe including Great Britain (containing England, Scotland, Wales), and Ireland, and several thousand smaller adjacent islands.

Although still commonly used, the term is disliked by some, who believe that it implies a continued British sovereignty over the whole of Ireland, or that Ireland is British in some sense. The term often causes offence in Ireland when used as an attempt to signify some common identity of the peoples of the islands.

In terms of geography the term British Isles is understood in Britain to refer to the whole archipelago, from Scilly to Shetland, containing more than 6,000 islands and totalling 315,134 km² (121,674 square miles) of land.

The introduction spends more time telling us that the name is controversial to some, than it does telling us what it means! The name "traditionally given" implies that the name is archaic as opposed to official and current. We see twice "is understood in Britain", as if to say, "Only Britain even uses this term at all, of course - the rest of us don't!"

As I had always understood it, British Isles was the name of the north-western islands in Europe in an entirely geographical context as "The largest island on which Britain is situated, and the other islands around it". Admittedly it's not so flattering to proud Irishmen who don't like to play geographical second-string to a country who had conquered them less than a century ago, but it's a geographical term all the same and it's one which is far too set-in to see a change any time soon.

Surely it only requires one line to note that the term is disliked by some Irish people who feel it suggests British ownership, and then later expand on this in its own section? --Jonathan Drain 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Whilst it may be prudent to say that the term "British Isles" is disliked in some circles, this article is meant to be about geography, not politics. The politics of the British Isles is (or should be) dealt with elsewhere. Waggers 09:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Except look at all the talk on this page. There needs to be something in the intro or we will be inundated with moans about bias and pov. I have made an attempt to trim the intro, however. Robdurbar 09:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that [i]some[/i] reference needs to be made to the controvercy, but we should ensure that the main thrust of the article is about the islands, rather than the politics. I think your change to the intro is an improvement, although probably some further refinement is needed. (For example, I'm not convinced we need the word "traditionally" in the first sentence) Waggers 10:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"To me, they read as if the author is an Irishman displeased with how ubiquitous the term "British Isles" is, and I get the impression that he doesn't want anyone to hear the term spoken without knowing that it's not so popular in the Republic"

Oh, that's really coming from someone who wants a NPoV?

Monucg 20:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The term is actually common in the UK. It is used politically by a lot of people in the UK and some in the Republic(of Ireland). It's objected to by most of us in the Republic as it does imply that we are British (and let's face it, we have dropped plenty of hints over the last few hundred years that we didn't and don't want to be British).

It is the case that people in Britain will actually refer to the Republic as being British anyway without even mentioning the British Isles. For example, the "British [sic] runner" Eamonn Coughlan, the "British [sic] actress" Brenda Fricker. (There are numerous examples in the media and on the Web. I saw U2 being referred to as "the British band" on a BBC webpage recently.Though we do also have a UK-born Head of State. Interestingly, she isn't referred to as being British)

Part of the problem is that we (most of us Hibernians) have been reluctant to cut the umbilical cord fully. We didn't formally become the Republic until 01/01/49. Until then, the "King of England", actually the King of the UK, was formally our Head of State. Until recently more of us watched UK television stations than Irish ones. When we talk about "going abroad" for our holidays we mean outside of these terminologically disputed islands. We don't refer to the British as foreigners either (which they are) and they don't refer to us as foreigners either for the most part. Until recently you didn't need a passport to move within the "Common Travel Area". Plus, the bulk of us speak English (except in Connemara and Bradford).

If you go on holiday to Continental Europe you may find, as I did, that you will be talking to British natives who will talk to you about "the foreigners". I pointed out that we were actually foreigners to each other (that is, British to Irish), to stunned looks. If you say to people from Britain that you object to the term "British Isles" they will often be surprised but for a variety of reasons. For one, some genuinely can't see why it causes offence, others can't see why anyone (on the planet) wouldn't want to be British if they had the chance and a lot see it as the natural order of things (the BBC has a lot to answer for).

Another problem is that (as some commentators have alluded to) academics will publish tomes that seem to be a bit confused on the subject. It's a little disconcerting to read tomes by British historians that seem to be well written until you come across a line/sentence/paragraph relating to Ireland that belongs in the realm of the counterfactual or anachronistic. You then begin to wonder if the rest of the exegesis is flawed also. I must finish now as there is another can of lager in the fridge calling out to me. Regards, Damian.

The term British Isles is not only used in Greate Britain, the German word is Britische Inseln and I guess most of the world calls those islands by this name. The only real alternative would be Anglo-Celtic Isles, but I've never heard of it outside this article. Markus Schmaus 16:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Legal Term

The only legal term recognised by both the UK and Irish governments when referring to the Archipeligo is 'these Islands.' Strand Three, The Agreement, 10/04/1998. There are many precedents for geographical terms (e.g. Benelux, Central Europe, North America etc.) being legally and politically recognised - the 'British Isles' is not one of them. The term is not used in legislation in either jurisdiction.

The term 'British' Isles is not purely geographic no matter how hard one may attempt to protest that it is - it has geo-political implications. Ireland is NOT a British Isle, however, it is a part of the same archipeligo as Great Britain. The term 'British' Isles is unacceptable when referring to Ireland under any circumstances; whether they be purely geographic, political, legal etc.

One cannot escape the English language definition of British i.e. of or relating to the island of Great Britain or the United Kingdom, or to its people or language. Under this basic definition how can Ireland be deemed a British Isle? It is a complete non sequitur. Ireland is not British thus is not a part of the 'British' Isles. Ireland's identity is Irish and European - it certainly is not British. Iolar Iontach

"The term is not used in legislation in either jurisdiction" is verifiably untrue; see this google search. The rest may or may not be true, but is irrelevant. Whether you feel that people are reasonable to refer to the British Isles or not, they do. It's the most commonly used name for the area among English speaking people, and so that's what the article has to be called. I can type this paragraph as many times as you like. --Khendon 19:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

From reading the statutes which you have provided it is clear that Ireland is no longer included in the term. The majority of the statutes which you have are amendments which support my previous claim that the 'British' Isles is not a legal term in either jurisdiction. It was in the UK but is not any longer. British Isles has been substituted for British Islands and Republic Of Ireland (sic) or the United Kingdom, Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and Republic of Ireland (sic). The Education (Listed Bodies) Order, 1997 refers to a theological college known as British Isles Nazarene College. The name of a 3rd level institution does not qualify it as a legal term.

I might draw your attention to the fact that the legislation you have provided gets the name of Ireland wrong - the name of Ireland is quite simply Ireland (Art 4, Bunreacht na hÉireann, 1937). The Republic of Ireland is only a description of the type of government in place in Ireland (s2 Republic of Ireland Act, 1948). If the UK government has difficulty understanding what the name of one of its closest European neighbours is it isn't any wonder that its citizenry has difficulty comprehending the fact that Ireland is NOT a British Isle?

'These Isles' is the only legal term used in BOTH jurisdictions. I agree that it is rather vague but it is more acceptable than the misnomer the 'British' Isles. I refer you again to the definition of British in the de facto official language of the United Kingdom. (As a lawyer I am aware that the UK does not actually have an official language). It is a non sequitur to refer to Ireland as a 'British' Isle. If your own language negates your views why do you insist upon them? Why do you insist upon including Ireland in an anachronistic term? If the consensus in Ireland (I include the UK region of Northern Ireland in this) is that it is not a 'British' Isle, why must you insist upon referring to it as such? One could consider it as tantamount to an attack on Irish sovereignty - I do not but I find it quite humorous that the British can be so ill-informed and arrogant.

Also, Google is an excellent tool if used correctly. One should actually read its results instead of posting a link at a cursory glance. Iolar Iontach

In this case, a cursory glance is all that was required, since the point of contention was whether the term is used in legislation; there are some instances of it still being used, therefore my point is proven. Use as a legal term, and your views on what is a "non sequitir" are only side issues anyway. The real issue remains that the islands are a geographical grouping that deserves a wikipedia article, and "British Isles" is the most (and indeed only) commonly used name. What exactly is it you want to do - remove the article? Rename it to "These Isles"? I hope you can see both are clearly absurd. --Khendon 07:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The term the ‘British Isles’ as describe by Wikipedia (ie to include the state the Republic of Ireland) is not used by the UK state in their legislation. Or are you trying to make out the UK still has a claim on the Republic of Ireland? I can type this paragraph as many times as you like. Monucg 19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

'These Isles' is extremely common in Irish media and Ireland in general; see what I have just googled. It gets more hits in google.ie than British Isles. To claim that 'British Isles' is the only commonly used term for the archipeligo is extremely anglocentric. The term has been replaced in all UK legislation (in which it was used) to my knowledge. Nowhere have I said that the article should be removed or renamed, however, problems with usage should be more prominent in the article. I trust we are all agreed that a significant proportion of citizens in the archipeligo have difficulty with the term? Same should receive more prominence; perhaps in an article about 'these Isles.' When the name for the archipeligo is formally changed will you have difficulty accepting that? The non sequitur, which I point out is not a side issue, it relates to the English language definition of the adjective in question. Your own language negates your claims. Can you not recognise that referring to Ireland as a British Isle is clearly absurd? Also just because a term is in 'common' parlance does not make it correct. 'These Isles' is legally defined in Strand Three p2 of the Agreement, this definition was used in the establishment of the British-Irish Council (N.B. it is NOT the British Isles Council) and it is in currency in Ireland. It is vague but it merits an article. I would argue that 'Britain and Ireland' is more common than the 'British Isles' when referring to entire archipeligo. The Manx and Channel Islanders are British Citizens (Interpretation Act, 1978 & British Nationality Act, 1981) after all thus it is accurate, inclusive and neutral. Iolar Iontach

But the term "British Isles" has nothing to do with the British state, and predates it by well over a thousand years. The naming influence was entirely in the other direction. When the British state chose to call itself Great Britain after the union of England and Scotland, it did so because Britain was already a geographical term that had been in use since at least Roman times (in various languages). The references in the article prove the use of "British Isles" to have always included Ireland. To reject it on the basis of a misunderstanding is pure ignorance, and does not deserve to be taken seriously. TharkunColl 23:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, British (and Roman occupation that liked to talk up its conquests) notation has always included Ireland. Irish notation has not done so. --Red King 00:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The term esisted long before there were any "British" or "Irish" nationalities. It is derived from Classical usage. The article even quotes the sources. TharkunColl 00:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of 'British' Isles in a language indigenous (English) to same is not classical it is relatively recent c.1600. There is no equivalent term in Irish. If we are using classical sources to justify the name, why not refer to Ireland as Hibernia, France as Gaul and the sun revolving around the earth? Utter nonsense. We have increased our knowledge since Greco-Roman times. Iolar Iontach

The vast majority of the inhabitants of Ireland speak English rather than Irish. Thank you for accepting that "British Isles" is the correct term in the English language. TharkunColl 09:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The First Official Language of Ireland is Irish (Art 8 s1, Bunreacht na hÉireann) and just to say that it had been used in English does not mean it is correct. I never accepted that it is correct just pointed out that the term was never used in the supposed area until c1600. It is not a purely geographic term, it is a misnomer that has political implications. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Iolar Iontach

It is you, and those who propose similar views, who have wilfully failed to grasp the true significance of the term. Read the article and you will see that the term, in Latin, predates c. 1600 by many, many centuries. The term "Great Britain" was chosen to describe the new unified kingdom of England and Scotland precisely because it was a pre-existing geographical designation, not the other way round, and one that was resisted in England for quite a long time. "British Isles" is a neutral term with no political significance, and it is only misguided Irish nationalists who have imbued it with such. When I use it I am making no statement whatever about the political arrangements that exist within the British Isles, either now or at any point in the past. On the other hand, all the proposed alternatives - IONA, or Anglo-Celtic Isles, are laden with political judgements imposed mainly by ignorance, and I refuse to take seriously any such bastardisation of our language. And whatever the constitutional status of Irish in Ireland, the fact remains that only a tiny minority can speak it. In this context am not in the slightest bit interested in whether the Irish language has a term for the British Isles or not - this is, after all, an English encyclopedia, and in English the term is British Isles. TharkunColl 15:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is dead in the water. I'm not an Irish nationalist yet I object to the term - I am entirely satisfied (actually happy) for Northern Ireland's constitutional status as an integral part of the UK to remain in perpetuity. It's non-usage in Ireland is certainly not determined by political stance, it is determined by the fact that Ireland is not British. This is due to our understanding of the English Language. The Pretannic Isles is not the same as 'British' Isles which you have great difficulty comprehending; 'British' refers only to the island of Great Britain, 'Pretannic' refers to Great Britain, Ireland and surrounding Islands excluding the Channel Islands.

Irish is not spoken by a tiny minority either, up to 40% of the population claims to speak it to some degree. The ignorance of Britons is bewildering at times; it is not a neutral term and to believe that it has no geo-political connotations is at best naive and ignorant, at worst arrogant and stupid. To believe that this is an English encyclopedia is just plain bizarre - this is the English LANGUAGE version of an internet Encyclopedia. The English language is not yours either, you do realise that English has been 'bastardised' to a huge extent over the centuries already, don't you? To claim that, 'Islands of the North Atlantic' is laden with political judgements' and 'bastardising' the language is just absurd and merits no further comment. I am sure you are entirely blissful in your ignorance. Iolar Iontach

"British" is derived from the Celtic word "Pretannic" and its variants. To say that the "Pretannic Isles" include Ireland, but the "British Isles" do not, is a gross absurdity, since the two terms are both etymologically and linguistically identical. Only those with a political agenda would refuse to recognise this. TharkunColl 09:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the funny thing about language - it evolves; British does not refer to Ireland under any definition, whereas Pretanic does/did. To state that the word, which is derived from Pretanic does not refer to Ireland is factual not absurd Iolar Iontach

The best that can be said for your position is that the term British Isles is going (or has gone) out of fashion amongst the Irish. It is still in common usage among the much larger population of Great Britain (to mean both Great Britain and Ireland), not to mention English speakers all over the world. You are therefore arguing for a minority dialectical variant. TharkunColl 10:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

'larger population of Great Britain (to mean both Great Britain and Ireland)' Ireland is certainly not a part of Great Britain. This is basic Geography, Great Britain is an island in North-Western Europe; Ireland is not a part of Great Britain. That statement makes your whole exegesis (I use the word advisedly) invalid. Complete and utter nonsense, I would love to have your ignorance as life would be much more blissful. Iolar Iontach

Can you actually read English? Where did I say that Ireland is part of Great Britain? TharkunColl 12:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes and I can punctuate it correctly too. You wrote "It is still in common usage among the much larger population of Great Britain (to mean both Great Britain and Ireland)" - parantheses after Great Britain. If you didn't intend to say "Great Britain - to mean both Great Britain and Irelan," the parentheses should have come after "common usage." Iolar Iontach

The fact that you jumped to such a conclusion indicates a level of sensitivity on your part that is unjustified by what I actually said. TharkunColl 15:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I do think that the etymology is a bit irrelevant here. The British Isles clearly has its problems, but cannot be considered anymore problomatic than 'these isles' - in that googl.ie search, at least 3 of the first 10 results of these isles are not referring to the British Isles. Indeed, when searching for 'these isles' as a phrase you get just 387 results (on pages from Ireland), compared to 62 400 for 'British Isles'.

That said, only one occaision of this term is found on the irish government's website. But please, if you feel that this page overstates the use of BI in Ireland, be bold! and re write some of it. The worst that can happen is that someone will remove your comments; but if you write well and fair, then you may improve the article. Robdurbar 09:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The first result on the first page of the search for 'British Isles' as a phrase on google.ie is for a Celtic jewellry shop in Co. Leitrim, I can find no reference to the 'British Isles' on their site. Only five of the webpages end in .ie and two of those are e-bay. "These Isles" has 100 results on ireland.com (The Irish Times website). I would say that makes it fairly common given the results above were deemed common re: British Isles. Britain and Ireland is far away the most common - over 1,000 results on ireland.com and 60,000 on google.ie, this phraseology is accurate, neutral and inclusive. Iolar Iontach

Agreed. But that doesn't stop Wikipedia from needing an entry on British Isles, and it doesnt stop British Isles from being the most common term in the English language as a whole. Britain and Ireland provide just 63 million of the world's english speakers, most of whom are more likely to know and use British Isles Robdurbar 12:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article re: the British Isles is required but that does not make the actual term factually accurate.Iolar Iontach 12:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made a few edits to promote 'Britain and Ireland' up the page based on this discussion. Robdurbar 12:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Britain & Ireland

'Britain & Ireland' is in common parlance when referring to the entire archipeligo. That is the justification being used for 'British Isles' thus it should be adequate for 'Britain & Ireland' and 'these Isles/Islands.' The Channel Islands are only included by convention in the 'British Isles' anyway so the argument that they cannot be included in 'Britain & Ireland' is invalid and PoV. They along with the Isle of Man are constituents of the British-Irish Council. The definition of 'these Isles' in Strand Three of the Agreement is what was used to establish the authority. It thus follows that the proper nouns relating to the adjectives British and Irish and 'these Isles' are applicable, they have the added advantage of being neutral and thus inoffensive. See British-Irish Councilfor further details.Iolar Iontach

As a matter of fact I would discount the Channel Islands as being part of the British Isles, because it is clear that geographically they are much closer to France. Let me give you some hypothetical examples of usage:

The use of farming spread to the British Isles during the fifth millennium BC.

During the early medieval period, the British Isles contained a number of often mutually hostile kingdoms.

The British Isles have only experienced a unified government for little more than a century, and no longer do so.

Two sovereign nations exist within the British Isles, both of which are members of the EU.

In none of these cases can you substitute "Britain and Ireland" without making your sentence sound strained and artificial. TharkunColl 15:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The aestethics of a term do not reduce the fact that it is probably the most commonly used alternative, and least difficult, paticularly if Britain is understood as a synonym for the UK, as it is often - somewhat inaccurately, admittadly - used. In the end, neither term is perfect. Both are used. The article describes the technicalities of terms. What else does anybody want? This is not a discussion page about what terms are correct to use, and if it continues to be use dso - i.e., inappropriatly as a forum and not as a page to disucuss improcements to the aritcle - then, quite frnakly, bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh (that's me blowing a raspberry, by the way). Robdurbar

"Britain and Ireland" is only usually used when referring to the two states that exist within the British Isles, as in (for example): Britain and Ireland are the two European states that have a majority of English speakers. When speaking geographically, as with the examples I listed earlier, "British Isles" is the preferred term. I cannot emphasise this enough, because it appears to be incomprehensible to some. "British Isles" is a geographical term that not only long predated the British state, but was actually what that state derived its name from (not the other way round). Whatever certain Irish people may think, whenever a Briton uses the term he is not making any sort of political statement, and is absolutely not trying to imply that the Irish Republic is, or should be, under UK control. But if your argument is going to descend into blowing raspberries then I'm probably wasting my time in trying to point this out. TharkunColl 17:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think you'll find that raspberries are clearly more helpfult than either yours or the other guy's arguments. Not once have either of you tried to compromise, to view things from the other's point of view. Why not acutally make some constructive comments - things that you want to remove instead of making arguments which neither of you listen too and which, whilst both making valid points, are of no relevance as they do not cotnribute to improving the article which is the point of this talk page. Robdurbar 17:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

And the raspberry was there to keep things light-hearted. Let's remember its only Wikipedia Robdurbar 17:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I have compromised; I am accepting that British Isles is in common parlance, however, it remains inaccurate and have re-added Britain and Ireland (the most neutral alternative) to the article. Iolar Iontach

"Les Isles d'outre-mer" would be a possible replacement. After all, that would take care of the commonality of the Norman heritage and the issue of the Channel Islands. The Channel Islands are of course, as other commentators have added, adjacent to France and referring to them as being part of the British Isles might, dare I say it, indicate not a geographical but political dimension to the use of the term "British Isles".

I'm sure that it would emphatically not be regarded as political and I can't stress that enough. Though it might be a little incomprehensible to those of us who are not au fait with the delicacies of the French tongue.;)

The bit about "Whatever certain Irish people may think, whenever a Briton uses the term he is not making any sort of political statement.." Hmmm. Let's take the proverbial man on the proverbial Clapham omnibus, is he or isn't he (wearing Impulse, we don't know but what about his political motivation)?

Loath as I am to refer to the tv but here goes. A program on the Beeb a year or two ago about the genetic origins of people in Britain. A pure example of "an Ancient Briton" could be found by analysing the people of Castlerea, County Roscommon, Republic of Ireland. Now the Briton in question is becoming ambiguous. Obviously in temporal terms and substantively in other ways he can't be the Briton on the Clapham omnibus. Though genetically, he could be related (and could indeed be an omnibus driver.

There are plenty of examples, if you care to look, where the whole of Ireland is subsumed into the greater whole. For example, "across the country", "here in the South of Ireland" in a Channel 5 weather forecast I saw a few days ago which was bereft of the landmass to the south and east of Britain. I won't mention the addition of County Donegal to Northern Ireland in the BBC News map of drought a couple of days ago.Doh!

A little sidestep I know but (and this is a direct quote from the [UK Parliament]Ireland Act 1949):

"the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom or in any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory, whether by virtue of a rule of law or of an Act of Parliament or any other enactment or instrument whatsoever, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, and references in any Act of Parliament, other enactment or instrument whatsoever, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, to foreigners, aliens, foreign countries, and foreign or foreign-built ships or aircraft shall be construed accordingly."

Of course, the self-same Act includes: "In this Act “the United Kingdom” includes the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man."

So, the terms in use can be quite elastic but the import is fairly (?) obvious. "British Isles" is one of those terms like "British Lions" (bye, bye), "Home Nations" etc. You can go to the following URL to read an excellent example of the prevailing confusion abounding in these islands:

http://www.englandfootballonline.com/TeamHist/HistHomeLosses.html

"Hungary were not even the first side to beat England at Wembley; Scotland already had done that four times. Nor were they the first side from outside the United Kingdom to beat England at home; the Republic of Ireland did that in 1949. They were, however, the first foreign side to beat England at Wembley, no mean feat."

So if the average Briton is "absolutely not trying to imply that the Irish Republic is, or should be, under UK control" he may think it is British as there is obviously more to Britain than the UK in his/her mind and he/she thinks that Hungary is foreign and the Republic of Ireland isn't.

The law you refer to, stating that the Irish Republic was not to be regarded as a foreign country, was brought about when it decided to leave the Commonwealth. Since there are, and have been for centuries, a very large number of Irish people living and working in Great Britain, this was done for their benefit. It ensured that they were still eligible to remain here, vote here, receive NHS treatment here, etc. In short, it meant that all Irish people living in the UK received all the benefits of British citizenship. It was an act of generosity that was not, I believe, reciprocated until both Ireland and the UK joined the EEC, at which point the Irish had no choice.

Personally speaking, I don't regard Irish people as "foreigners" in the same sense as I would, say, the French or Germans. They are like the Scots or Welsh, not English but not foreign either. Indeed, I have had far more interaction with Irish people than with Scots or Welsh. I realise that by saying this I am opening myself up for allegations of being patronising at best, offensive at worst, but neither of these are part of my intention. It is simply a fact, that's all. TharkunColl 09:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Irish people are foreigners in relation to Britain. That is the fact of the matter. Wkhat you refer to is opinion; both yours and your government's. Your government does not regard them as such but it is also incapable of using the correct, internationally recognised name for the country in UK statutes, which somewhat invalidates its opinion. Irish people are not British thus they should be considered as foreign as French and the Germans. Ireland has a rather significant thing called national sovereignty which impedes it (or its citizens) from being considered British at any time, under any circumstances. This is a rather basic concept that school children in Ireland have little difficulty comprehending in Civil, Social & Political Education. Iolar Iontach

Notions of "foreigness" don't have to follow modern political boundaries, you know. How about Korea, or Germany until fairly recently? Or even Ireland itself, come to think of it. Do you regard the inhabitants of Northern Ireland as foreign, even the Nationalists? Well you should, if you adhere to your own definition. As far as I'm concerned, England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales form a family of home nations that, through shared history and geographical proximity, cannot be considered foreign to each other. Narrow nationalists may disagree, but that doesn't affect how most people think. And perhaps the British Govt. use "Republic of Ireland" in their statutes so as to avoid confusion with the island as a whole. Don't be so quick to ascribe ignorance when there might be a perfectly good practical reason.TharkunColl 18:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Narrow nationalists may disagree, but that doesn't affect how most people think.

Surely you mean how most British people think?Superdude99 14:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not view people from Northern Ireland as foreign, as Articles 2 & 3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann (not a mere statute) do not view them as such. Ireland is not a home nation - it is not a constituent of the UK thus cannot be considered as one. Ireland is a state, which is internationally recognised - England; Scotland; Wales; and Northern Ireland are nations/regions that constitute the state of the UK. This is a fundamental difference and has nothing to do with politics - it's constitutional law. Iolar Iontach

If it's okay for a sovereign state (Ireland) to make laws with regard to the non-foreigness of citizens of another sovereign state (the UK - i.e. Northern Ireland), then surely it's okay for the UK to legislate to the effect that Irish citizens are also not to be regarded as foreign? In any case, most of the Irish people I've spoken to - and we have countless thousands in the city where I live - take a similar view to mine as to the familial nature of the relationship between the four nations that inhabit the British Isles. Perhaps it's only the ones that choose to live in England that tend to think that way, but I can only go on personal experience. My views about nationality and foreigness obviously don't correspond precisely to current political borders, but then why should they? Borders are only artificial constructs, and none more so than the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. I don't believe it was right to arbitrarily partition Ireland like that, and I feel that some sort of confederation between the four nations would have been the best thing to do, though I accept that that's probably impossible now. I truly think that with goodwill on all sides, decades of violence and bad feeling could have been avoided. The fact is that for centuries, if not millennia, the people of the British Isles have been bound to each other by ties of geography, commerce, and culture, and there has never really been a time without substantial population movements between them. TharkunColl 18:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

People born in Northern Ireland are entitled to Irish citizenship; in accordance with the Irish Nationality & Citizenship Act, 2004 (with some constraints) - it is not conferred upon them against their will and a substantial proportion of people from Northern Ireland view themselves solely as Irish. It is thus appropriate for the constitutuion to acknowledge this. The citizenry of Ireland (state) does not consider itself as British, nor does its constitution thus it is entirely inappropriate and factually inaccurate for the UK government to consider it as such. A confederation would not have been acceptable to Ireland. Not everyone wants to be British - the Irish have given many hints throughout the centuries that they do not want to be. Ireland is quite a succesful country and has a achieved its successes as a sovereign state. Ireland being considered as a Home Nation is just wrong. Iolar Iontach 18:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to get into a political argument here, but I sincerely doubt that the UK government regards citizens of the Republic as British Citizens. The Act to which I referred granted Irish citizens resident in the UK all the rights of British citizenship, without actually being so. As I said before, this was an act of generosity, not some plot to re-take Ireland. My point about confederation was as an alternative to partition, as was proposed at the time, but this was prevented by the First World War and German support for Irish extremists. As I said, I think things have gone too far to heal the wounds now, which is a great pity. TharkunColl 19:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

British and Irish Citizens (not British Nationals) are not regarded as aliens by either jurisdiction. They remain foreign however. Iolar Iontach

The crux of the issue is the regarding of the two states and peoples as being foreign (or not) to each other. Most people on the larger island do not see an issue with the use of the term "British Isles" as they see "British" as being a supra-national term covering constituent nationalities. It isn't a case of it being "incomprehensible to some" or "certain Irish people". The term is in use partly because of beliefs such as the Irish "are like the Scots or Welsh, not English but not foreign either". The incomprehensibility lies with the inability to see why people who are proximate and speak English wouldn't want to be British or live on a British Isle.

As for "four nations" I suppose you could ignore references to two nations existing in Northern Ireland, as you would have to because that would make five nations not four, or two altogether, the Irish nation and the British nation.

By the way, there already was a confederation, it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (and we didn't want to be in it).It was the federation of the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland, plus the principality of Wales.The UK is a federal state, not something that people care to acknowledge in the UK too often though.(Perhaps because that might seem a little incongruous when complaining about the "federal EU superstate".) It is not governed uniformly by the same laws throughout, nor does it have the same systems of education throughout. (Ignore the differences in banknotes, the ones in Scotland and the North are Monopoly money, not legal tender anywhere.)

I think there may have been a little bit more to partition than the "First World War and German support for Irish extremists". Both Unionism and Republicanism predate the First World War. The proposed secession of Ireland from the Union was an issue that split the British Liberal Party in the nineteenth century and it has has never recovered from it. Though it isn't a topic that most people in Britain would be able to tell you much about, basically because it isn't mentioned much in Britain (a bit like a lot of things that have passed between the two islands).

I refer my learned friend to the "two nations" mentioned earlier. There were and still are people who want to be both Irish and British and those who want to be solely Irish. That is why you can occasionally hear Northern Ireland Unionists referring to themselves as "Irish" when they are referring to themselves as British Irish in the context of a constituent nationality of the UK. While they would object to being called "Irish" if it means solely Irish and not also being British. Though since the late 1960s self-indentification as Irish has declined amongst Protestants due to a further delineation of the political importance of the terms "British" and "Irish", which hasn't been replicated to the same extent in Great Britain. Hence why people from England can cause unintentional offence to some Northern Ireland Protestants by calling them "Irish".

Talking about the quasi-familial relationship between the peoples of these islands doesn't alter the political dimension of the term in use. You could try telling someone on the Shankill Road that they are "Irish" or someone in the Ardoyne that they are "British" to test that; but I wouldn't advise it. Plenty of people in the UK would probably not regard Afro-Caribbeans or Pakistanis as foreigners because of a shared history. I'm sure that the same could be said of folks in Alsace-Lorraine who might not regard Germans as true foreigners but wouldn't tell you that they weren't living in France.

Perhaps, eventually, the term "British Isles" will go the way of "British Lions" or "British Commonwealth".

Nothing you say is in any way relevant. The term "British Isles" predates the formation of the British state. If anything, the Irish should be pissed off at the British state for appropriating the term "British", rather than the other way round. Read the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and you will discover that the British and English were enemies. TharkunColl 08:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I'm gonna at least question this merge, on the grounds that the Brit Isles terminology is a useful page. I fear that, though there are clearly benefits to a merge, much of the useful content of the terminolgoy page would be lost in such a process. For now, then, Im against it, but could be won over. Robdurbar 16:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

BI (T) provides a useful page to direct to that has no other concerns, than recognising different terminolgoy wihtin the British Isles, some of which would not be relevant to a British Isles page. Robdurbar 16:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

With all the concerns about Ireland being confused with the UK the last thing we want is a link to an article about the entire British Ises from the top of the UK article. We need a special article to keep the distictions clear. josh (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge and interlink

There is apparently a great deal of (largely unreferenced) controversy over usage and meaning of toponyms as evidenced by Traditional counties of the British Isles, British Islands, British Isles, British Isles (terminology), Britain and Ireland, Islands of the North Atlantic and Brythonic or Anglo-Celtic Archipelago. Why not merge articles with quasi-identical content, and then provide mutual links to the articles that arguably and evidently do not mean the same thing. //Big Adamsky 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain this one further? Are we (baisically) talking about an extended disambiguation page Robdurbar 19:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes why not? Or maybe combine articles that explain how different names are used to refer to the same region, while clearly pointing out how some terms differ or who opposes the usage of which terms and what alternative terms are preferredn instead. //Big Adamsky 19:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that their is merit for a well written British Isles article, but this idea that a whole article is required simply to explain the different terms is confusing, and strange - and pov that we select British Isles for this priviledge. It undermines the basis for good, well researched articles- that are to the point. It sets a precident. Before someone points out the fact that I am Irish, I am not one of the editors that use these talk pages to push an anti-British agenda. Djegan 20:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok; then for me a well-done merge could remove the pov issues, whilst the existenece of a terminology article is probably a result of a weakness in this article. A poorly done merge would damage wikipedia. In the end, if it goes ahead and doesn't really work, it can always be undone. Robdurbar 18:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Undoing the merge will be a lot of work if any other editing has taken place during the merging - and there's going to be a lot of that because this is going to take time. DirkvdM 08:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I started the terminology article because there was a need to give a good quick overview of what's what in the British Isles. I managed to somewhat sort this out for myself, combining bits of info from various articles and then decided I might as well turn the overview into an article. The fact that I needed to do this means there is a need for the overview, especially for people not from the Isles. What counts most is the first overview. As long as that bit is at the top of an obvious page (such as this one) I don't really care too much, although I'd prefer to keep the article. It seems a useful and logical collection of info. Mind you, I'm serious about the overview (as it is now) appearing at the very top. If that doesn't happen, I oppose the merge. DirkvdM 08:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Another issue is whether a merge would result in more offence - people who disagree with the term might be more comfortable being directed to a page with 'terminology' in the title, rather than straight to the BI page Robdurbar 09:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm unsure about the need to merge these two articles. Don't get me wrong: to increase their utility, each can stand for significant pruning and refocusing (particularly British Isles (terminology)). Ideally, British Isles should be an overview of the archipelago/entity in toto – particularly when dealing with common notions of geography, history, or sociopolitics (with specific notions being dealt with in their respective articles) – while British Isles (terminology) should serve as a concise article clarifying relevant terms and definitions ... essentially retain everything before the table of contents and significantly prune or nix everything below. The historical aspects and chart of constituent states, for instance, might be more appropriate in articles regarding those political entities or in just the British Isles article.

Similarly, I and others recently developed Americas (terminology) – whose title was inspired by the current topic – which is meant to concisely clarify the various terms and entities in the Americas. As well, this was partially borne out of a desire to end incessant edit warring at the America DAB, in which any number of Wikipedians were either disatisfied with the order of entries (North America/South America, USA) or wanted to include a plethora of others that detract from the function of the DAB (e.g., the region of Central America). While I'm not necessarily suggesting a similar retrofit here, they may prove helpful in improving articles for these topics about entities across the pond.

And as for offending he or she, this should be minimised if verifiable sources are cited ... few of which appear herein (and something kept in the forefront when developing Americas (terminology)). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well given that there has been no comment for a week, and no consensus, I'll remvoe the suggested merge tag.... Robdurbar 11:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)